The Gate

Look at what is. Now. Why would you search for a state or experience and ignore this moment? It doesn't even logically make any sense that there would be something available in the future that is not here now, does it? This moment is all you have and there is nothing missing.

That this truth is obvious is perhaps illustrated by a thought experiment I had where a genie appears and grants me anything I wish for as long as it is something real (as opposed to something imagined). However, since anything I could choose would be something in the future, it would automatically be imaginary so I would not be able to wish for it. One would think this would trigger a realisation that the "I" only exists in some imaginary future and never at this moment, but this is theory, and as the joke goes - In theory, practice and theory are the same but in practice, they aren't...

What if you simply stop making up stories about why things are wrong right now and about how things should be so they are finally satisfactory.

I think there are varying levels of the ability to be "satisfied with the now". The problem is that I'm always looking for that "ultimate level" that comes with realising the "ultimate truth". and in that "level" a supposedly unassailable peace is found, when the notion of a suffering "I" is finally realised as untrue and freedom is "attained". However, as it stands, any simple ache can remind me that I'm just as distant as ever from that illusive goal. While the saying about pain being inevitable while suffering being optional is something I just know has to be true, changing it from being a theory I'm certain of to a living truth I know is the tricky part...

Well... it seem to all boil down to you still looking for something - ultimate truth, or whatever we want to call it... that is not here now, right?

What does "ultimate" mean to you? Its pretty much the same as the term "absolute", right?
The definition of "absolute" is: something that is free from any restriction or condition; something that is independent of some or all relations; something that is perfect or complete; something that is not restricted by time or space...

Now... this would mean that the Absolute has no opposite, it contains the relative (not the other way round). Its very nature is omnipresence.
Once we see this we can talk from either perspective. Most people only see the relative perspective and when they hear comments like "Before Abraham was, I am" or "Cleave the wood: I am there; lift the stone and thou shalt find me there!" they try to interpret it from their relative point of view. They believe that there really is an entity that can be found under a separate object we call "stone"... but this is not what these comments are meant to convey. They are spoken from the absolute point of view.

So, when you are looking for something... who is doing the looking? And what is the something that you are looking for?
Is there a looker that can be outside of the absolute? Can something be found that is not it?
It is That doing the looking. It is That identifying. It is That which you are looking for... Can you find something that has never left you? Do you see?

Look! Is there a separate "you" looking? What is looking/hearing/smelling/thinking...?

Is there a looker that can be outside of the absolute? Can something be found that is not it?

It doesn't make any sense for a looker to be outside the absolute, as it would just mean that absolute is not absolute. In Judaism there's a saying that "there is none but Him". The same realisation is at the root of all non-dual teachings. The fact that this has to be true is so logical and so totally obvious to me on an intellectual level that no persuasion is necessary. The problem is that there is a "someone" who believes he understands this, who logically knows he can't be separate from reality and at the same time is worried and anxious about the things this imagined entity is attached to . It's similar to the dream in which I knew I was dreaming and wanted to wake up but didn't know how - here it's a logical understanding that the "I" is only a concept and yet this understanding does nothing to dissipate it.

It might be that all that is left is to continue to meditate upon it until something clicks - and if it doesn't - well, it still is what it is, and if the master plan requires an imagined suffering individual to stay ignorant then that's the way it should be (as it obviously can't be anything else...)

Thanks,
Amnon

The problem is that there is a "someone" who believes he understands this

No, there is only the belief that there is a "someone" - but there really is no "someone" who believes anything... is there?
Can you find this "believer" as an entity separate from the belief (from thought)? If not, maybe it is just a thought..? Maybe this "you" is just a thought?

it's a logical understanding that the "I" is only a concept and yet this understanding does nothing to dissipate it

Thats because you still believe that there is something that needs to be dissipated... You believe that "you" can be in control of this process - a thought being in control of its own destruction...Well... How would that work?
The only thing that can be done is... nothing. How do you "do" nothing? You drop the belief in being the doer! How to do that? See that there is no such entity! Is there one? Can you find it as an entity separate from thought?

No, there is only the belief that there is a "someone" - but there really is no "someone" who believes anything... is there?

Going in circles with this one. On one hand it needs to be realised that the "I" is only a thought about thought and on the other there is no one to realise this. It actually does make perfect sense and yet seems so out of reach because this belief is so convincing. You might as well tell someone in a state of extreme fear or panic not to worry about it because they don't really exist so there is no one the fear is happening to. It might very well be true, but will be of little use or comfort to the dreamed entity and it's dualistic point of view.

I try to notice the thoughts a few times a day, even noticing the thought of noticing the thoughts. I don't know what the right balance is: Do too little and you won't get anywhere, do too much and you run the risk of wanting something which also misses the point.

You believe that "you" can be in control of this process - a thought being in control of its own destruction...Well... How would that work?

Of course it can't work. It's a ludicrous concept, and yet the thought created "I", not knowing (nor able) to handle this problem, keeps looking for a solution in the only dimension it can exist in, i.e that of duality.

How do you "do" nothing? You drop the belief in being the doer! How to do that? See that there is no such entity!

From a dualistic conceptual filter, dropping the belief in a doer is also something that needs to be done (or more accurately, undone). In the dualistic reference frame, there is also a chronology with a sequence: at one point in time you believe there is a you, then you do some stuff (whether spend years in meditation, get hit on the head by a coconut, follow pointers in LU, whatever...) and if you're lucky - bam! reality's light dawns and you are no more. After it clicks, this sequential process itself might be seen as an illusion but I'm not at that point and still looking for the most convincing way to drop the belief.

To be honest, from the perspective I'm asking the questions from, I still don't understand the difference between being unconscious or dead to being liberated. In both cases there is no separate "I" to experience anything and in both cases existence continues to happen as it always had and always will. Perhaps this can't be understood while stuck in a dualistic mindset, but perhaps a pointer on this could help as another push in the right direction.

To be honest, from the perspective I'm asking the questions from, I still don't understand the difference between being unconscious or dead to being liberated.

Yes, true, from the perspective you are asking from there is no difference as the "I" that is (or rather seems to be) asking the question will die (but, this is also misleading, as there really is nothing that dies).
The problem is maybe that "die" is a very strong term. It refers to something that was born, has a life and then gives up this very life. It somehow vanishes or is reborn or... you name it. Thus you are also looking for a very intense experience - close to dying - which would indicate that this I/self is now really gone...

Lets look at being conscious... Is this separate "I" conscious? Does it own consciousness? Or is there consciousness OF this I(-thought)? If you find that you are conscious of this I/self and that there is no separate entity called "I/self" that would own and direct this consciousness, then why would consciousness disappear once the (illusion of the) I disappears?
Also, why would the dissolution of a belief result in you now not having any more I-thoughts at all? It is like seeing a mirage. You realise that it is not real, just a play of light, but this does not remove the mirage from your field of vision, does it? You simply know that it is not real, even you still see it when you look at it...
What is it that does the looking? Are "you" looking or is "consciousness" looking (this does not mean that there is a separate entity called consciousness there at all)?

Now lets have a look at death. Death works hand in hand with birth, right? If nothing is born, nothing can die.
So, when have "you" been born? And where did "you" come from? What was this act that created "you"? Have "you" been there when "baby Amnon" did its first cry? If not, then maybe you have learned to be you... so this would mean that you have only been born once thought took aim at the idea of there being a separate self, once this belief has been thoroughly established... Now... is this really the birth of a separate entity or just the establishment of a belief? When this seeming entity "dies", how would that be experienced? As a real loss of something "physical" or only as a shift in perspective (only the mental perspective - your vision won't change :-)

Going in circles with this one. On one hand it needs to be realised that the "I" is only a thought about thought and on the other there is no one to realise this.

Yes, true... its seems to be a paradox, but only as long as you believe that there was an entity that realised anything, ever. What if there never was such an entity and "your" realisations are simply "realisations" - there being no "you" that made them...
When you realise something... how does that work? Does a realisation require a separate "realiser"?

Hi Alex,

I was happy to see your reply. For some reason I received no notification that there was a reply and had already made up a story on how you were tired of trying to get through to a die-hard ego mind...

By some coincidence (whatever that means...) today I opened the book "The Ultimate Medicine" (Nissargadatta Maharaj) and stumbled upon the exact same question I asked you (I know the deal was to put aside other teachings while in LU correspondance but in my defence I imagined that I was expelled anyway ;-) ). The question was asked by a visitor three times until Maharaj addressed it directly:

V: But if after death, the state of the man of knowledge and the man who has not understood are the same, what is the point of trying to become a man of knowledge?

M: Who will say of the qualityless and attributeless parabrahman that he is attributeless after death? Only one who understands while living that he is nirvana - qualityless, attributeless — he alone will say it. He does not know whether he is or he is not. Non-Beingness or Beingness have absolutely no effect on him. That is nirguna, that is parabrahman. Bombay itself does not know that it exists or does not exist. Does the soul, atman, go to hell or heaven? People say. I have a serious illness, but what am I experiencing? I am experiencing only the vital breath. The vital breath sets and the Beingness goes, but I am not affected.

I am asked the question: Can we say that you and I are identical? so I say. show me the sample of what you are and show me the sample of what I am, then I can tell you whether we are the same.

Coming from a dualistic perspective, I am bound to misunderstand what he meant, but from the answer, especially the part about "Only one who understands while living that he is nirvana - qualityless, attributeless — he alone will say it" it seems as though one who is liberated while alive will remain liberated as opposed to one who wasn't, and again this seems to imply some lucky liberated entity unlike the poor ignorants who remain enslaved after death, which sounds as dualistic as it gets...

Lets look at being conscious... Is this separate "I" conscious? Does it own consciousness? Or is there consciousness OF this I(-thought)? If you find that you are conscious of this I/self and that there is no separate entity called "I/self" that would own and direct this consciousness, then why would consciousness disappear once the (illusion of the) I disappears?

One realisation I've had long ago was that "you don't have consciousness - it is consciousness that has you". This was after struggling for a long while with the materialistic philosophy of "consciousness as an emergent phenomena created by the brain". But there seems to be an issue of terminology here. Usually, the term "consciousness" implies someone being aware of being. This necessarily implies an "I" thought and in that sense consciousness will disappear with the physical death. I assume that whatever it is that survives death is the same thing that "survives life" because it is beyond (or rather prior to) both. It is that which enables the "I" thought but is not the "I" thought. That which breaths life into the concepts, but is not the concepts - that which I essentially am, but unable to see...

When this seeming entity "dies", how would that be experienced? As a real loss of something "physical" or only as a shift in perspective

Again, from a dualistic perspective, after physical death there will be nothing to experience as there will be no one to experience it. No gain, no loss - nothing. With no consciousness of being, who is it that can experience a shift in perspective?

When you realise something... how does that work? Does a realisation require a separate "realiser"?

Hmm, that's an interesting observation. It seems as though there really is no "I" in any realisation. The "I" later claims this realisation as it's own. Guess I should be more vigilant in noticing this "I"'s constant "taking the credit for reality"...

I'll think a bit more about your reply. Seems like there's more to meditate on than I've addressed here.

Best regards,
Amnon

it seems as though one who is liberated while alive will remain liberated as opposed to one who wasn't, and again this seems to imply some lucky liberated entity unlike the poor ignorants who remain enslaved after death, which sounds as dualistic as it gets...

The "liberated" knowledge/understanding is that You (in this case the Absolute, Self) have no attributes.
Neither now nor ever. Not while "alive" or "dead", simply because the You has never been born and can never die.
This does not mean that there is someone that is liberated and some other one that is not liberated. There are no separate "ones".

But there seems to be an issue of terminology here. Usually, the term "consciousness" implies someone being aware of being. This necessarily implies an "I" thought and in that sense consciousness will disappear with the physical death. I assume that whatever it is that survives death is the same thing that "survives life" because it is beyond (or rather prior to) both. It is that which enables the "I" thought but is not the "I" thought. That which breaths life into the concepts, but is not the concepts - that which I essentially am, but unable to see...

No.
As long as there are forms/arisings, consciousness of (or rather AS) form is inevitably there. What you refer to as death is simply the ending of a chain of thoughts that claim that there is someone living a separate life. Consciousness is not affected by "your death". It is not dependent on your form being "alive". Yes, there will be no more thought about a specific I/self. No more subjective ideas of being an individual - at least not for this specific (illusory) entity that one believes to be.

Also, there is nothing that "survives death" or "survives life", simply because both are just ideas - they are not real. Consciousness (the Absolute) is also not beyond or above or before anything else as there is nothing that is not it. The I-thought is it, all beliefs are it, the sun is it, you are it. So where is the before, beyond and after? These are just ideas that you hold and cherish, but they have no value outside of conceptual thought.

Consciousness does not enable anything - like an I-thought - that is not again consciousness itself. There is no doing as there is no separation between a doer and the done.

It seems as though there really is no "I" in any realisation. The "I" later claims this realisation as it's own. Guess I should be more vigilant in noticing this "I"'s constant "taking the credit for reality"...

Yes!

Regarding death or any situation that from a dualistic point of view would be considered a loss of an "individual's consciousness" you wrote:

Yes, there will be no more thought about a specific I/self. No more subjective ideas of being an individual - at least not for this specific (illusory) entity that one believes to be.

I figure there's no way for me to understand this yet, as from a dualistic standpoint, this appears to be an identical description to the situation of one who has realised "no I". This is why it's difficult for me to find any distinction between the sort of existence after physical death of a "non liberated" body-mind and that of a liberated one who is physically alive. Consciousness without an awareness of anything is something I can't fathom.

Having said that, I continue to try and be aware of thoughts throughout the waking state with the hope that with practice, the questions that now seem unanswerable will gradually melt away. Attempting to continuously "notice the noticer" isn't simple though, because the going through the day requires focusing on various tasks and at least at the moment, I can't concentrate simultaneously on the task at hand and on noticing the thoughts that are required for the task to get done.

Hi Alex,

Just wanted to wish you (and everyone) a happy new year. Thank you for taking the time to reply to me over the past months, especially since I can imagine that my level of cluelessness would sometimes require significant amounts of patience... :-)

Hope to someday repay the favour by at least having the same patience when helping others struggling with the same questions.

Have a great 2016 and beyond :)

Amnon

Hi Amnon,

Thank you! I also wish you a Happy New year!

I figure there's no way for me to understand this yet, as from a dualistic standpoint, this appears to be an identical description to the situation of one who has realised "no I".

The difference is that the "realised perspective" does not kill Santa, while death (or deep sleep) does...
Santa (your imagined self) is still thought of - concepts of there being an I doing and experiencing things will still be there. The only difference is that now you know that this is just a story - a concept that we use to function in this world. You know that there really is no you experiencing anything - the identification with this illusory entity fades away... Life continues, but not for the "you" that you believed to be...

Consciousness without an awareness of anything is something I can't fathom.

Is there ever an awareness of a thing? What are "things"?
When you look at a thing on your desk... what makes it a thing? Does "awareness" do that?
Are awareness (=the seeing of the thing) and the "thing" itself two different objects?
Are they in any way separate or are there only thoughts of separation? Do these thoughts reflect "reality"?

Regards,
Alex

I think we might be running into the limitations of language:

The only difference is that now you know that this is just a story

This implies there is a story and one who knows it which implies duality, so for me this is back to square one regarding trying to make sense of the difference. I assume it is because I'm trying to make sense of something that is beyond the scope of logical understanding.

Is there ever an awareness of a thing? What are "things"?

I think "things" are stories that an "I" (which itself is a story) makes about reality in order to be able to continue it's seeming separate existence. The attempt to penetrate the question of what are "things" from a separate rational standpoint is practiced as the discipline of physics, which I studied for a couple of years before realising there must be more effective ways to get to the bottom of things (accidental pun)...

When you look at a thing on your desk... what makes it a thing? Does "awareness" do that?

It is a thing because there is a perceiver. As a perceiver, I have no access to what it really is prior to my perceiving it (which means no access to the fact that we are one and the same). My perceiving of a thing is what I usually refer to as "my awareness" or "my consciousness". It could be though that I'm actually confusing perception with "thinking about the perception".

This implies there is a story and one who knows it which implies duality

No. When saying that "now you know that this is just a story" I don't mean it word for word. Maybe I should have said "now there is the knowing that this is just a story". No separation between the knowing and the known. No entity "knower". Does that make more sense :-)

I think "things" are stories that an "I" (which itself is a story) makes about reality in order to be able to continue it's seeming separate existence

This would only be the case if there would be a separate I/self in existence that would be able to do just that.
If this I is just a story... how should a story make up a story? Maybe its all just one story that includes the I?

It is a thing because there is a perceiver.

Where is this perceiver? Is it separate from the perceived?
When you look, does seeing alone tell you that there is a seer and a seen? Or is this is a thought based conclusion that doesn't really match direct experience?

It could be though that I'm actually confusing perception with "thinking about the perception".

If there is no thought about what is being perceived at the moment then no objective thing can be seen - in this case there is no way that you could talk about it as there was no recognition taking place... agree?
When your eyes are open you see many things - meaning things that have been identified via/as thought - but while this is so there is also just thing-less visual information that is not conceptualised as it seemingly is of no interest in the specific moment... A bit like when looking at a tree you see the stem and a few branches, some green foliage... but you don't see each leaf before you actively focus on it. Does this mean that the leaf was not there before or simply that there was no specific thought or focus of attention on it?

Some more about expectations:
Lets assume there is this enlightened master and then there is a seeker. What do you think is the difference between them? Do they experience this moment in a different way? Do their vision, hearing , smelling or tasting differ in a way that one could be called awake and the other one asleep? Or maybe its just the thoughts that "accompany" each moment... Maybe the seeker still thinks there is a moment when something that is currently broken will become whole and the master simply knows that this moment is already whole... Maybe the seeker still thinks that the separate self/I has to be dropped while the other one knows that this story-of-I is also just an arising in That - nothing personal, just a few thoughts passing by... (again, just to be precise: all of the above does not mean that there really is a master or a seeker that would be doing any of these things...)

Sorry for the delayed reply - I get lost attending to everyday things, kicking myself a few times a day that I don't focus enough on paying attention and that I often get lost in the belief of the story...

No. When saying that "now you know that this is just a story" I don't mean it word for word. Maybe I should have said "now there is the knowing that this is just a story". No separation between the knowing and the known. No entity "knower". Does that make more sense :-)

Yes, thanks. Not that I get it, but at least what I don't get is consistent :-)

This would only be the case if there would be a separate I/self in existence that would be able to do just that.
If this I is just a story... how should a story make up a story? Maybe its all just one story that includes the I?

Makes perfect sense and feels just beyond my grasp - like chasing a mirage...

If there is no thought about what is being perceived at the moment then no objective thing can be seen - in this case there is no way that you could talk about it as there was no recognition taking place... agree?

Yes.

Does this mean that the leaf was not there before or simply that there was no specific thought or focus of attention on it?

My analysis is that whatever was there before, it certainly wasn't a leaf, as a leaf is a concept that requires recognition and therefore a recogniser. No "I" has access to whatever that leaf was before it is labeled as one, because in that moment there is no "I" either.

From the dualist point of view, being alive means being able to experience recognising something, and recognise that I'm recognising. While life and recognition were happening long before this body was born and will continue long after this body will die, in this body's absence there wasn't and will be no personal consciousness of anything happening. You could say consciousness is always there, but for the personal body/mind this is irrelevant as it remains as inaccessible as the personal experience of a different body/mind.

Maybe the seeker still thinks that the separate self/I has to be dropped while the other one knows that this story-of-I is also just an arising in That - nothing personal, just a few thoughts passing by... (again, just to be precise: all of the above does not mean that there really is a master or a seeker that would be doing any of these things...)

The bottom line is that the master is at peace with how things are while the seeker is still seeking, so a so-called seeker's is envious of the state of the so-called master, mistaking it with the state of some satisfied "I" when in fact it's the state of no I and therefore there is no one there to envy, especially since everyone is also That - but in order to realise this, one has to be enlightened - like those lucky enviable masters... :-)

Yes, thanks. Not that I get it, but at least what I don't get is consistent :-)

Hahah... that was funny... made me laugh! Thanks :-)

a leaf is a concept that requires recognition and therefore a recogniser

Why would this be so? Just because you believe this to be the case? Because that is what we have been told?

When you look at a leaf - a thought appears "Aha. a leaf!" Recognition is happening, but where is the separate recogniser? Another thought might come up "Well.. here! I have recognised the leaf!". Is this recogniser more than just another thought?

Imagine just for now, that there never was anybody there doing anything (this does not mean that there is nothing happening). Just thoughts passing by stating this and that - stating that "I am here" and "I have done that!"... It sounds very convincing, right? But what if there is no I at all, what if this "I" is again just a thought?

Contemplate that and look at direct experience. Can you ever find this recogniser, this thinker, this doer? If not why would it be so strange if there really is no separate any-one?